Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Both to an extent. As I understand it, the Eastern Empire had its own problems with internal strife.
History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?
- Thread starter Winston Bush
- Start date
Both to an extent. As I understand it, the Eastern Empire had its own problems with internal strife.
The Mandarin
Claim, Assert, Dominate.
Half the people who died in the holocaust died because of negligence not because the Nazi's wanted to spare them. Just that they were so incompetent they killed the poor souls before they could exterminate them. Though, I'm not sure why this is a controversial take as I'm not denying the holocaust happened.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Depends which part of the Holocaust you mean. The Extermination Camps I could definitely entertain, but in the case of the Einsatzgruppen SS, I couldn't disagree more. The Nazis could be chillingly efficient killers.
The Mandarin
Claim, Assert, Dominate.
Yes, I meant the camps. If you look at Asian cultures, who frequently perpetrate that manner of organized genocide and how efficiently they have done it historically. It's fairly clear to me that while the intent was to exterminate them, the achievement was accidental and not in line with their plan. Arguably, that makes it even more tragic.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
As I'm on a mostly American site, let me drop the mother load of controversial opinions.
The militia and minutemen of the War of Independence are hilariously overrated. They got lucky at Lexington and Concord, but whenever they went up against British Light Foot, they got mulched as I understand it. Besides, this near obsession with the militia, of the common man standing up to the tyrannical British (who were such mustache twirling villains that we only wanted you to pay the Tea Tax), does a great disservice to the professional soldiers of the continental army.
The militia and minutemen of the War of Independence are hilariously overrated. They got lucky at Lexington and Concord, but whenever they went up against British Light Foot, they got mulched as I understand it. Besides, this near obsession with the militia, of the common man standing up to the tyrannical British (who were such mustache twirling villains that we only wanted you to pay the Tea Tax), does a great disservice to the professional soldiers of the continental army.
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
True in general they didn't do the best job but when they did what was asked of them...well stuff like Cowpens and Kings Mountain happend
I really don't think that's a controversial opinion; it's pretty much the opinion of everyone who has actually studied the American Revolution as opposed to just following the pop culture view of it.
The "elite" minutemen were usually the only militia who were particularly competent, and even then only as irregular light skirmishers. They practiced often enough to have competent-if-mediocre drill, but were still a far cry from regulars.
They didn't get lucky at Lexington and Concord, instead the brits were (By Concord) hilariously outnumbered, by like 4 to 1, with a horrible job (walk though and back enemy territory using a known path). They were nearly surrounded at one point, then the relief force from Boston saved them with a cannon.
Last edited:
At the end of the day, the British regulars accomplished everything they set out to do, taking relatively minimal casualties despite being massively outnumbered by colonial forces. The militia was generally only successful in skirmishing and was absolutely unable to actually *block* the movement of the British formations so long as discipline was maintained, although to be fair they nearly *did* succeed in wearing the initial British force down to breaking out of complete exhaustion.
That's not true at all. They took massive casualties, destroyed almost no munitions (e.g. the musketballs they tried to destroy by throwing into a swamp were actually dredged out, IIRC), had large casualties, and then were strategically bottled up in Boston until Evactuation day afterwards.
If you just look at the casualty count, it's clearly in favor of the colonials (from wikipedia):
It was also a huge morale loss for the British as well, and a huge victory morale victory for Colonials.
Source: I lived in Lexington and worked in the tourism industry there as my job in High School, and also read a shitton about it.
Last edited:
Lexington and Concord were British losses in the strategic sense, because the entire point of seizing the militia supplies was to force a de-escalation of the situation; instead, they sparked the war. But they were still British victories in the tactical scale. While the British certainly took more casualties than the colonials did, that number of casualties was relatively trivial relative to the size of the units involved. Those were absolutely not "massive" casualties by period standards, and they don't change the fact that the British did in fact accomplish what they set out to do.
The Lexington tourism industry is entirely built around promoting the pop culture image of the American Revolution, so . . . yeah, that's exactly the ideas refuted by actual military historians.
The Lexington tourism industry is entirely built around promoting the pop culture image of the American Revolution, so . . . yeah, that's exactly the ideas refuted by actual military historians.
No, Those were large casualties. The british sent out 700 troops (followed by a later 800, but this is very near the end), and lost 126 dead an missing with another 174 wounded, for a total casualty count of 300. That's about 42% of the initial force, and 20% of the combined force (and after the combined force they was little further battle, so the real battle caused much closer to 40% casualties than 20%). Without the relief force (and cannon), the British would have been surrounded out.
In contrast, the Milita took fewer casualties, and even fewer % casualties because there were roughly 4000 of them by the end.
Also, the British didn't accomplish their goals, tactically or strategically. Almost all of the weapons had been hidden, so the British destroyed almost none of the weapons they had been searching for, as the militia had been prewarned by many hours by a multitude of riders (not Paul Revere, who didn't make it, but another did). Strategically, the goal of the assault had been to stop a rebellion. Instead, now the British are in Boston under siege from 15,000 Militia.
Last edited:
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
To be fair the American Milita had their hours like Kings Mountain but then of course you have stuff like Oriskany.
Ash's Boomstick
Well-known member
As much as we rip the mickey out of the French, almost all the local countries involved in the European war agree that the French Resistance were heroic, tough and never stopped fighting even at the risk of their live. They did have their reasons for surrendering that many can't empathise with, but they still fought for their homes both during and after both invasions in 1940 and 1944.
There were French who surrendered, and French who fought on.
I am reminded though of how when Charles de Gaule demanded that all American soldiers be removed from France, general Eisenhower coldly asked if that included those buried there.
Ash's Boomstick
Well-known member
CdG is seen as an arse by just about everyone including the french themselves, he was dismissive of anyone that fought to feee the french including his own colonial troops. There's a story where the famous 'french troops entering Paris' film/photos are mostly German POWs dressed up in french uniforms so they didn't have to march in coloured colonial forces. Also demanding that his people be the first in the city even though other allied units were closer and better equipped.
While I hate defending CdG for any reason, the "all white liberation of Paris" was actually dictated by Allied high command. General Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, wrote in an official memo:
"It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel. This would indicate the Second Armoured Division, which with only one fourth native personnel, is the only French division operationally available that could be made one hundred percent white."
The British liason to Allied Supreme Command, General Frederick Morgan, agreed:
"It is unfortunate that the only French formation that is 100% white is an armoured division in Morocco. Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division."
In the end, no all-white unit could be found, so Allied Command required the French to switch personnel in the designated unit until it was all-white. They did not actually resort to using German POWs, but they did end up "borrowing" a lot of Spanish troops to produce the necessary whitewashing.
Ash's Boomstick
Well-known member
Thank Arxxy, I went by old reports I had read a few years ago which indicated what I had said. Its still bloody stupid though given the number of coloured soldiers in all militaries back then that fought for the 'home countries'. Although it kind of went against a lot of what happened in the UK at the time regarding segregation given it didn't really exist in most units. In fact more than one punch up between US and UK soldiers happened because of it.
While the cited quotes indicate that the British went along with it, the demand for an all-white liberation of Paris was definitely coming from the United States, which was the only major power that enforced racial segregation in its military and was rather sensitive about this, especially since the British actively refused to force the segregation of civilian facilities in the vicinity of American bases. If anything, many British civilians got along noticeably better with black American soldiers than with white American soldiers -- as George Orwell's essays mentioned, the British perception of American GIs were that they were "oversexed, overpaid and over here", but "the general consensus of opinion is that the only American soldiers with decent manners are Negroes."